Butterflies & Buffalo

[Primo I.]

Hi all,

I thought I would post this link to photographer Dennis Manarchy's new project. This is really amazing. It has to be (as far as I know) the largest camera ever built and the focus of the project itself is fascinating. here are two of the links, the first first one is on the camera itself and the second is on the project he is currently working on:

http://butterfliesandbuffalo.com/theproject/camera/

http://butterfliesandbuffalo.com/

[Drew Wiley]

There's plenty of past chatter about this thing. I'm just a bit amused at how he can claim the most detailed images ever, esp for facial portraits, when it's perfectly
obvious his depth of field will be close to zero. It might work for mummies, or those who can hold a pose until they are mummies, or are willing to be permanently
blinded by a flash the size of an atom bomb. I dunno. PR stunt as far as I'm concerned. But hopefully he's having fun, and it does call attention to what "real"
cameras are supposed to look like.

[Primo I.]

I agree. In fact, there is nothing on his website that shows how he goes about his process. He is very market savvy though, I guess that comes from doing all that work with HD, Gap and Nike. I felt after reading portions of his site, that he is drawing attention to himself. What I did enjoy was the fact that it was built in the style of an old large format camera and quite beautiful to look at.

[Tin Can]

I better get over there next week, it's only 3 miles away. It leaves Chicago in a week.

I would like more technical info. I think we know more about this one than this latest edition of big. For one, how was the lens made and specs.

http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

[Jody_S]

I better get over there next week, it's only 3 miles away. It leaves Chicago in a week.

I would like more technical info. I think we know more about this one than this latest edition of big. For one, how was the lens made and specs.

http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

Please let us know if you're able to get close enough to tell if this is a real camera or a prop.

[Drew Bedo]

I cannot believe that the camera shown on the low-boy trailer actually exists outside of Photoshop. The design is for a camera scaled to be able to be worked by hand. Anything that size would need gears or hydraulics to manipulate the parts. The negatives we see have been made with a camera obscure enclosure built into his studio.

This project cannot move out of the studio without a foreign-aid sized grant from Uncle Sugar . . .

There was a thread here a year or so ago that had a link to a YouTube video about a camera mounted to a duel axel utility trailer ~1/4 this size. It was made from a short shipping container and had a telescoping box on the front for focusing. The video showed the process from mounting the film through processing. Most importantly: Ti was a real camera.

[E. von Hoegh]

I've always thought it amusing, the rhyme of 'malarkey' with 'Manarchy'.

[Tin Can]

This must be all lies, photoshop and typical Chicago stupidity.

http://vimeo.com/74846199

[E. von Hoegh]

This must be all lies, photoshop and typical Chicago stupidity.

http://vimeo.com/74846199

People in Chicago are stupid? Funny, that wasn't my impression. Good music too. :)

[Tin Can]

I live here and that was sarcasm.



People in Chicago are stupid? Funny, that wasn't my impression. Good music too. :)

[E. von Hoegh]

I live here and that was sarcasm.

I know, Randy. I've just read way too much marketing hype from this guy to have any further interest in him or his camera.

BTW, we got a dusting of snow last night, I was out this morning with my Chicago-made Deardorff. :)

[Tin Can]

Yes, the snow word keeps coming up, I am still impressed with the 47" SD got 3 weeks ago.


I know, Randy. I've just read way too much marketing hype from this guy to have any further interest in him or his camera.

BTW, we got a dusting of snow last night, I was out this morning with my Chicago-made Deardorff. :)

[goamules]

That is the dumbest looking "monster camera" i've ever seen. Reminds me of a mockup of....anything...commonly seen at carnivals. What's the point of the fake brass components and braces, and metal bellows, other than to make you think it's a "ole timey" camera? If it were aluminum, and a sliding box built into a trailer, and I could see more of the lens, I'd be more interested. Also, what is he going to shot onto? A 10 foot sheet of film? From where?

[Drew Bedo]

I think there is a video (on You Tube?) that is like a soft fund raising pitch. It shows him making an exposure with a sort of dark room with a lens in the wall built into his studio; a "camera obscura". I believe that he has made the negatives he shows with that set-up.

If there were a real need for this, it would be much less costly to bring the subjects to his studio. Another lower cost option would be to bring a knock-down studio set up to a location and assemble it in a rented warehouse. That he doesn't do either of these things tells me that there is no commercial pressure for it, nor is there a real art-world nitch to fill.

Again: That what he has shown so faris as far as this project can go, I think—without large amounts of someone elses money.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, surely EKCo never made a Ball Bearing Shutter as large as the one in the publicity shot.

[Drew Bedo]

Dan: How right you are!



I cannot believe that the camera shown on the low-boy trailer actually exists outside of Photoshop.

.

Now, here is a large camera that was actually built and used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_giant_camera.jpg

http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

[Jody_S]

I've just watched a 5-minute bit on this camera on the Discovery Channel show Daily Planet (Tuesday, March 11, 2014). It's the 2nd bit in the show, starting at about 6:40 in (I watched online). There are close-ups of the lens, including the writing on the front (Apo-Ronar 1:14 1070mm TekPak ~ Beyer Perkolup). He claims to have spent 1200 hours, and north of $25K, building the lens, so I figure he's either a terrible machinist, or the shutter actually works (though the external appearance is clearly meant to be a historical reproduction).

Other claims: uses 3m- (10'-) high negative film and has a mock-up of a vintage LF back on the rear of the camera that houses an 80" plasma screen, which gives a live feed of what's going on on the negative to be exposed; sadly, right-side up (doesn't explain how... infrared-sensitive surveillance cameras are cheap though). There's a chair on the front of the camera hooked to a threaded-rod & lever focusing mechanism (subject moves to focus, not the negative). There's other interesting details, but I've listed the ones of interest to photographers.

I was able to watch the episode online, but I think you have to go to your country's Discovery website to access it, so here's the link for Canada (http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/#clip1073491)). He's planning on taking it on a road trip across America to do portraits, and has a number of excellent portraits in his studio which are shown in the episode (he doesn't say if they're made with this camera, but it's implied). I did not see anything relating to artificial lighting for these portraits, I'm guessing he wants to use full sun with fill reflectors, or possibly an overhead diffuser. That should give manageable depth of field at 1/4 - 1/30s exposures, with the 1070mm lens. With a large CoC, he should be able to get approx. 1'4" depth of field @f64 at 1/8s, assuming he's had Ilford or Kodak do a run of Ultra-ULF 125 ASA film. Just speculating, there was no mention of what he uses for film. If memory serves, he claims to have put over $1M into the project, so I don't see why he wouldn't have bought a roll of film directly from one of the manufacturers.

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes, there are other threads on this.

The camera is real, and it uses real film, 6ft x 4.5ft. Yes, anybody can make a humongous camera like this themselves! I've seen photographs of him working with strips of 220, and sheets of 8x10.

Honestly, I thought this endeavor would never actually see light of day. What Mr. Manarchy wants to do is go around the country with this camera, and it will be like the circus has pulled into town. I'm glad he's actually doing it.

Remember, if you want to be famous, you have to do something that people will talk about! Priorities (http://www.despair.com/priorities.html): "Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction."

I got my 47-1/2" lens. Where's yours? (devil-smiley-here)

[Jim Becia]

Yes, there are other threads on this.

The camera is real, and it uses real film, 6ft x 4.5ft. Yes, anybody can make a humongous camera like this themselves! I've seen photographs of him working with strips of 220, and sheets of 8x10.

Honestly, I thought this endeavor would never actually see light of day. What Mr. Manarchy wants to do is go around the country with this camera, and it will be like the circus has pulled into town. I'm glad he's actually doing it.

Remember, if you want to be famous, you have to do something that people will talk about! Priorities (http://www.despair.com/priorities.html): "Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction."

I got my 47-1/2" lens. Where's yours? (devil-smiley-here)

I saw the camera this past Oct./Nov. The camera is on a trailer and the trailer was designed and made just south of here. They had an image from the camera printed on some type of fabric that was hanging from the county building. I think is was something like 30 feet tall. Whether he is able to pull off remains to be seen. Like Brian mentioned, the film is 6 feet x 4.5 feet. The subject sits on a chair that does move and that is how focusing takes place. I forgot where he was heading after Wisconsin. Have not heard anything since then.

[Tin Can]

+1


Yes, there are other threads on this.

The camera is real, and it uses real film, 6ft x 4.5ft. Yes, anybody can make a humongous camera like this themselves! I've seen photographs of him working with strips of 220, and sheets of 8x10.

Honestly, I thought this endeavor would never actually see light of day. What Mr. Manarchy wants to do is go around the country with this camera, and it will be like the circus has pulled into town. I'm glad he's actually doing it.

Remember, if you want to be famous, you have to do something that people will talk about! Priorities (http://www.despair.com/priorities.html): "Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction."

I got my 47-1/2" lens. Where's yours? (devil-smiley-here)

[Amedeus]

Well put Brian !

Lucky you ... I mean, the 47 1/2" ... very hard to find ...




I got my 47-1/2" lens. Where's yours? (devil-smiley-here)

[Jody_S]

I got my 47-1/2" lens. Where's yours? (devil-smiley-here)

I'm not entirely sure what I would do with a 47-1/2" lens. I can't even afford proper 8x10 film, let alone something to warrant that focal length.


On another note, is anybody able to access the video I linked to, outside of Canada? Just curious.

[Tin Can]

I just watched it in Chicago.

'The last film project.' Sure, big of him.


I'm not entirely sure what I would do with a 47-1/2" lens. I can't even afford proper 8x10 film, let alone something to warrant that focal length.


On another note, is anybody able to access the video I linked to, outside of Canada? Just curious.

[Brian C. Miller]

Well put Brian !

Lucky you ... I mean, the 47 1/2" ... very hard to find ...

There was one on eBay, and I managed to snag it. I didn't snipe it, I just decided that I would spend X, and the other fellow didn't want to top that.


I'm not entirely sure what I would do with a 47-1/2" lens. I can't even afford proper 8x10 film, let alone something to warrant that focal length.

I plan to start with Ilford Harman Direct Positive Paper (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=65). I think I can get 8 shots out of a roll, at a bit over $100/shot.

Oh, crud! I need to get that paper now! It was made by Harmon, and they've gone under! Nuts!

We have been, and still are, trying to secure the formula for the emulsion through the Receiver appointed for ILFORD Imaging Switzerland. If successful we intend to restart production, but being realistic it will take many months before any new coatings will be ready for sale, and we may not succeed.

(All gone!)
(I got the last roll!)

[bob carnie]

Harman has not gone under, the paper was manufactured by the swiss group and sold by Harman, they are very much alive and well.

There was one on eBay, and I managed to snag it. I didn't snipe it, I just decided that I would spend X, and the other fellow didn't want to top that.



I plan to start with Ilford Harman Direct Positive Paper (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=65). I think I can get 8 shots out of a roll, at a bit over $100/shot.

Oh, crud! I need to get that paper now! It was made by Harmon, and they've gone under! Nuts!


(All gone!)

[Brian C. Miller]

Right, the paper's manufacturer went under. But it's not being made now, and I'll have to wait and see if Ilford can restart the product. It also may be too much of a niche product.

[bob carnie]

I talked to one of the Harman owners on the weekend, He said it would be very unlikely about this paper.


Right, the paper's manufacturer went under. But it's not being made now, and I'll have to wait and see if Ilford can restart the product. It also may be too much of a niche product.

[Brian C. Miller]

I was just looking at the lens (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=602083153167791&set=a.602082826501157.1073741826.168869143155863&type=1&relevant_count=4), and a video of the construction (http://vimeo.com/74846199), and that's a real good chunk of glass there! Manarchy said he went looking all over the world for the lens, but there's no other information on it except the focal length. 1070mm f/2, maybe? It would have to be a process lens, probably from a semiconductor plant.

So, the bellows are fake (steel). I wonder if the shutter actually functions the same as a Wollensak.

Tony Beyer is the president of Tek Pak, where the shutter was made (TekPak - BEYER). He said it weighs 250lbs, and is made from aluminum.

Curious.

[Amedeus]

Looking at the lens it says "APO-Ronar 1070mm f/14" ... this would indicate a Rodenstock lens and Rodenstock did indeed make a 1070mm APO Ronar process lens. The catch is though that the Rodenstock lens doesn't look that large compared to the large chunck of glass on the front of that camera ...

Then looking at the video it is obvious that it's not a Rodenstock lens ... looks more like an 8 to 10" lens that was mounted in the shutter ... so whatever is written on the lens ring probably doesn't apply ...

Interesting ...

[Jody_S]

Looking at the lens it says "APO-Ronar 1070mm f/14" ... this would indicate a Rodenstock lens and Rodenstock did indeed make a 1070mm APO Ronar process lens. The catch is though that the Rodenstock lens doesn't look that large compared to the large chunck of glass on the front of that camera ...

Then looking at the video it is obvious that it's not a Rodenstock lens ... looks more like an 8 to 10" lens that was mounted in the shutter ... so whatever is written on the lens ring probably doesn't apply ...

Interesting ...

I figured when they wanted to shoot, they mounted the APO-Ronar into the barrel, on some sort of washer-type adapter. I also wondered if there is a shutter in there, perhaps an electronically-controlled jumbo Packard. Or the packard and APO-Ronar may be assembled together in some sort of insert that is safely stored somewhere for travel.

From the video above, there is a very large (10" - 12") meniscus (or double convex?) lens mounted in the front of that giant 'lens', but I don't think that's what they use as a taking lens. It may project an image onto something inside, but I think they swing that whole front out of the way when they're actually using the camera. There is no way they would travel with their primary taking lens exposed to bugs and dust and gravel, etc.

[Brian C. Miller]

There is no way they would travel with their primary taking lens exposed to bugs and dust and gravel, etc.

There's no way they'd travel anywhere with the camera exposed like that. They must have done those shots just for the video. I'm sure the camera trailer is narrow enough for a semi trailer, just like was animated in the original Kickstarter video.

If the lens is not the taking lens and is just for show, then those could be condenser elements. Manarchy sort of mumbles in the video (at 2:09), and doesn't say anything about the elements, which didn't come in a barrel. Also, the inside of that shutter is bare and shiny, no flocking or anything.

If they are using an arrangement to swing in the taking lens, a 1070mm f/14, then that's going to be something like f/70 wide open for a 4x macro portrait.

[Amedeus]

I'm with you when it comes to the lens not being the taking lens. There's a video on the project website where Manarchy is shown in action with his "prototype" studio camera and that one is clearly showing a good sized process lens ...


There's no way they'd travel anywhere with the camera exposed like that. They must have done those shots just for the video. I'm sure the camera trailer is narrow enough for a semi trailer, just like was animated in the original Kickstarter video.

If the lens is not the taking lens and is just for show, then those could be condenser elements. Manarchy sort of mumbles in the video (at 2:09), and doesn't say anything about the elements, which didn't come in a barrel. Also, the inside of that shutter is bare and shiny, no flocking or anything.

If they are using an arrangement to swing in the taking lens, a 1070mm f/14, then that's going to be something like f/70 wide open for a 4x macro portrait.

[Jim Becia]

Guys,

The so called lens on the front, at least the one I saw, was just for show. It is not functional by any stretch of the imagination. I know, I got up and tried to move one of several parts and it is purely for show. The lens is left on the camera purely for show. It was parked here for nearly a month exposed to the wind, snow, and snow. Not sure what he really uses for a lens with the camera, but what you see is not a real "taking" lens. Here are some pics that I took to show the camera's size and the trailer on which it is mounted. The last pic shows a photo supposedly from the camera and hung from the county building.

[Brian C. Miller]

The last pic shows a photo supposedly from the camera and hung from the county building.

I suspect he scans the negatives on a blueprint transparency scanner, as it's the only method that would accommodate the negatives. The resolution is the same as a drum scan from an 8x10. What he hangs is an inkjet print on weatherproof canvas, i.e., it's done on a 600dpi billboard printer.

So you got to see it! Excellent! Too bad you didn't meet him, then you could have peppered him with questions about the enlarger!

[Jody_S]

From the video I posted, someone should be able to estimate the distances (subject to lens, lens to film), and from the shoulder portrait and stated size of film, estimate the focal length of the lens used. There are enough known variables to be able to make reasonable estimates of the necessary variables. For instance, the height of the camera can be used in a side shot to get distances from subject and film to the lens, with a bit of measuring on your screen.

[dsphotog]

Hmmm.... Perfect for portraits at Burning man!